用于恶劣环境下伤口灌洗的水净化产品:台式评估和建议。

Ian B Holcomb, Stefanie M Shiels, Nathan Marsh, Daniel J Stinner, Gerald McGwin, John B Holcomb, Joseph C Wenke
{"title":"用于恶劣环境下伤口灌洗的水净化产品:台式评估和建议。","authors":"Ian B Holcomb, Stefanie M Shiels, Nathan Marsh, Daniel J Stinner, Gerald McGwin, John B Holcomb, Joseph C Wenke","doi":"10.55460/1FK6-PB2L","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Irrigation is used to minimize infection of open wounds. Sterile saline is preferred, but potable water is becoming more widely accepted. However, the large volumes of water that are recommended are usually not available in austere environments. This study determined the long-term antimicrobial effectiveness of military purification powder compared with currently available civilian methods. The study also compared the physical characteristics and outcomes under the logistical constraints.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six commercially available water decontamination procedures were used to decontaminate five different sources of water (pond water, river water, inoculated saline, tap water, and sterile saline). Each product was evaluated based on six different parameters: bacterial culture, pH, turbidity, cost, flow rate, and size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All methods of treatment decreased the bacterial count below the limit of detection. However, they had variable effects on pH and turbidity of the five water sources. Prices ranged from $7.95 to $350, yielding 10-10,000L of water, and weighing between 18 and 500g.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In austere settings, where all equipment is carried manually, no single decontamination device is available to optimize all the measured parameters. Since all products effectively reduced microbial levels, their size, cost, and production capability should be evaluated for the intended application.</p>","PeriodicalId":53630,"journal":{"name":"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Water Decontamination Products for Wound Irrigation in Austere Environments: Benchtop Evaluation and Recommendations.\",\"authors\":\"Ian B Holcomb, Stefanie M Shiels, Nathan Marsh, Daniel J Stinner, Gerald McGwin, John B Holcomb, Joseph C Wenke\",\"doi\":\"10.55460/1FK6-PB2L\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Irrigation is used to minimize infection of open wounds. Sterile saline is preferred, but potable water is becoming more widely accepted. However, the large volumes of water that are recommended are usually not available in austere environments. This study determined the long-term antimicrobial effectiveness of military purification powder compared with currently available civilian methods. The study also compared the physical characteristics and outcomes under the logistical constraints.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six commercially available water decontamination procedures were used to decontaminate five different sources of water (pond water, river water, inoculated saline, tap water, and sterile saline). Each product was evaluated based on six different parameters: bacterial culture, pH, turbidity, cost, flow rate, and size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All methods of treatment decreased the bacterial count below the limit of detection. However, they had variable effects on pH and turbidity of the five water sources. Prices ranged from $7.95 to $350, yielding 10-10,000L of water, and weighing between 18 and 500g.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In austere settings, where all equipment is carried manually, no single decontamination device is available to optimize all the measured parameters. Since all products effectively reduced microbial levels, their size, cost, and production capability should be evaluated for the intended application.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53630,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55460/1FK6-PB2L\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55460/1FK6-PB2L","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:冲洗用于减少开放性伤口的感染。无菌生理盐水是首选,但饮用水正被越来越多的人接受。然而,在艰苦的环境中通常无法使用所推荐的大量饮用水。这项研究确定了军用净化粉与目前可用的民用方法相比的长期抗菌效果。研究还比较了后勤限制条件下的物理特性和结果:方法:使用六种市售的水净化程序来净化五种不同来源的水(池塘水、河水、接种盐水、自来水和无菌盐水)。根据细菌培养、pH 值、浑浊度、成本、流速和大小等六个不同参数对每种产品进行了评估:结果:所有处理方法都能将细菌数量降至检测限以下。然而,它们对五种水源的 pH 值和浑浊度的影响各不相同。价格从 7.95 美元到 350 美元不等,产水量为 10-10,000 升,重量在 18 至 500 克之间:结论:在所有设备都需要人工搬运的艰苦环境中,没有一种去污设备可以优化所有测量参数。由于所有产品都能有效降低微生物水平,因此应根据预期应用对其大小、成本和生产能力进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Water Decontamination Products for Wound Irrigation in Austere Environments: Benchtop Evaluation and Recommendations.

Background: Irrigation is used to minimize infection of open wounds. Sterile saline is preferred, but potable water is becoming more widely accepted. However, the large volumes of water that are recommended are usually not available in austere environments. This study determined the long-term antimicrobial effectiveness of military purification powder compared with currently available civilian methods. The study also compared the physical characteristics and outcomes under the logistical constraints.

Methods: Six commercially available water decontamination procedures were used to decontaminate five different sources of water (pond water, river water, inoculated saline, tap water, and sterile saline). Each product was evaluated based on six different parameters: bacterial culture, pH, turbidity, cost, flow rate, and size.

Results: All methods of treatment decreased the bacterial count below the limit of detection. However, they had variable effects on pH and turbidity of the five water sources. Prices ranged from $7.95 to $350, yielding 10-10,000L of water, and weighing between 18 and 500g.

Conclusion: In austere settings, where all equipment is carried manually, no single decontamination device is available to optimize all the measured parameters. Since all products effectively reduced microbial levels, their size, cost, and production capability should be evaluated for the intended application.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
期刊最新文献
Limitations of Triage in Military Mass Casualty Response: A Case Series. REBOA Use in a Medicalized Prehospital Setting Proposal for a First Protocol Based on the Delphi Method. Military Medical Student Specialty Preferences During the DHA Transition: A Retrospective Analysis. The Effect of Radiological Assessment of Volunteers for French Paratrooper Training A Five-Year Retrospective Study. Vascular Repair in Wartime Casualties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1